While it’s good that a decision to spend billions of dollars is getting lots of attention, the quality of that attention leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. The decision, of course, is in regards to what kind of fighter plane Australia should buy to replace its aging F-18 Hornets in the next few years. This has been enormously controversial ever since the Howard Government signed us up as a partner in the development of the Joint Strike Fighter program with the USA. While there were a lot of questions about the way the program has been handled, with the new government the key question is whether the JSF is up to the job Australia needs it to do, including dealing any possible airborne threats, and, specifically, any Russian-made Sukhoi fighters that might be purchased by other nations in the region (read Indonesia, carrier-borne Indian aircraft, or possibly China if it acquires an aircraft carrier).
Somebody at the ABC has apparently got hold of a RAND Corporation (a US defence think-tank with a long and colourful history) report that says that the “the Joint Strike Fighter cannot compete in close combat with Russian-made Flanker jets.”, which has set off a series of comments from both the Government -stating that the government is monitoring the purchase and will only buy if it lives up to expectations – and the Opposition – who are absolutely convinced the JSF is the greatest thing since sliced bread and want the government out singing its praises. The annoying thing about all of this is that the news reports tell us very little we didn’t already know.
The report says that the JSF has “inferior acceleration, climb, turn capacity and a lower top speed than Russian and Chinese fighters”. That’s not news to anyone. The question is whether these advantages are rendered moot because the JSF’s advantages in avionics, missiles, and stealth would ensure that said foreign fighter planes, up to no good, would be shot out of the sky before they ever see a RAAF aircraft. That’s what the backers of the JSF believe; skeptics don’t. That’s of course aside from whether “Russian and Chinese fighters” will ever show up in any substantial number anywhere near Australia, given that Indonesia has a grand total of two of them. I have no idea whether the RAND corporation report has anything useful to add to the first question; nor am I competent to evaluate its conclusions if it does. But without some more context, the news reports don’t tell us anything we haven’t known for years, and thus nothing that gives us any more indication as to whether the JSF is a good use for $16 billion or so.
I wonder if Australia can buy Russian built aircraft or the eurofighter in addition to US built aircraft? I guess if you had a JSF and a Sukhoi flying in formation you’d have the best of both worlds theoretically. That said, I imagine it would be expensive and I assume that we have more experience operating US aircraft.
As an aside does anyone know if the parts of various US aircraft are interchangeable. (I.e. could the under-carriage of a F-22 fit on an F-35?)
I liked the counter-argument put by the JSF manufacturers: it has the most powerful engine ever fitted to a fighter aircraft. It almost seems as though they are appealing to the petrol heads. ” Phwoar! Look at the size of that “
Let’s all just take a little dose of reality.
We aren’t going to be buying Chinese or Russian military hardware in the current climate. Maybe after an amazing thaw in relations, realignment of economies and political systems then in 30 to 50 years. But not now – and this purchase is being made now – with the cards we are dealt.
The JSF is the best on offer. Better than anything from Europe (and hasn’t the Eurocopter purchase been a raging succeess!!) The Yanks have said Nyet to us getting the F-22 (which is my preference) so it just isn’t on the table. To delay waitin for a change in US Policy is plainly a poor course of action.
Finally, the JSF is part of a total airwarfare package, which in a coalition may include F-22s. The question is in the threat scenarios planned for is our package better than theirs? I don’t expect that sort of information to be readily made public just because it is a multibillion dollar project. We don’ disclose what are our current and future submarine capabilities are, and nor should we.
what kind of fighter plane Australia should buy to replace its aging F-18 Hornets
We currently own the F/A-18 Hornet. When discussing military hardware, it helps to use the correct identification to avoid looking like someone with no idea of what they are talking about.
A “No” from the US Congress translates into English as “what’s in it for my district?”
If we wanted the F22, some deft lobbying could get it for us. Particularly since Lockheed-Martin and Boeing are as good as God in that place, and US air force keeps having to cut back on its F-22 requisition. They’d be powerful allies in a serious push to get the F-22.
Of course, if we’re only interested in a Defence of Australia-type plan, perhaps we could just develop blimps with the capacity to carry a few hundred AMRAAMs apiece and some decent radars. It’d probably be cheaper and a pain to get through.
And being a pedant on a non-military blog about a few letters says more about the commenter than the writer of the post.
Whee, I love saying I’m right. I argued this a long time ago on this forum (and others) that the F-35 was rubbish, the only thing worse was the ‘super’ Hornet, now the chickens are arriving. Lovely (except for my poor tax burden, but I gave up long time ago in expecting Australian Givt’s to be anything but channels or mouthpieces for the Australian Kleptocracy).
Kinematics matter a lot, because electronics age faster. So you build a plane that has a great radar, etc, but flies like rubbish, but counter measures get developed. In the end the best plane will win, and for the first time in history US plane performance is degrading. The F-18 E/F is worse than A/B/C, albeit with a very slight range advantage. The F-35 is worse than a F-18 E/F .. que? I suppose all their best minds are in finance, which is a very scary thought.
Plus stealth is 30 years old, so counter measures have been developed, stealth is no longer, well ‘stealthy’.
I take my hat off to the Russians. Possibly because they were short of money they have thought hard how to beat the US systems. And with the SU-30 with its systems, they have it. At best we can expect to have 1:1 exchange ratio with F-18/F-35 (probably a lot worse) at a fraction of the cost. Attrition, they win.
Now the Airpower mob think the F-22 is the bees knees, but I doubt it. At best, it is a match for a -30 in WVR, (=1:1, $70M vs $350M) with a slight advantage in BVR, more likely it is a hanger queen, with a limited duty cycle which means most are on the ground at any one time = targets.
Now the old rules from WW2 apply, you need a Spitfire/Mustang for air superiority, and a Mosquito to drop the bombs where you want them and can get there and back safely. Back in the old days they knew this so Oz chose the Mustang because we need range (we actually made them here). Plus the Mosquito, which we also made here. Logical.
Since then we went into ga-ga land and “all the way with LBJ”. Concepts like “what do we actually need” went by the wayside to be good yankee. well not mates, supplicants would be a better word. So we have bought rubbish over the years, F-18, well the F-16 was better and cheaper and had a better range as well. F-111, no one in their right mind bought this rubbish (heretical I know, but hey Galilao was right as well).
Best option, buy the -30. It has all the characteristics Oz wants. Range (which we desperately need), even 2 engines, excellent BVR and superb WVR (only equalled or bettered by the Eurofighter, the F-22 is not in the same class). And they are cheap, we can buy squillions of them for the price of f-35s. And Russia would cream itself to sell to us, heck with good negotiation we could probably get them for a 50% discount just for the prestige the Russians gets. (Again going by past experience Oz would pay twice as much and get the poorest versions, probably second hand models from Serbia that have sat in a barn with the cows for 20 years).
Chumpai: No, you can’t just bolt your favourite bits onto your favourite fighter chassis. Aside from issues of physics and mechanical engineering, integrating all the software to work together is increasingly complex.
If you buy multiple aircraft types, you have to have spares, and people trained to maintain, each of those aircraft types. Ask Ansett how costly a strategy that is.
That said, there are lots of upgrade bits that are developed over the life of a combat aircraft; new weapons, avionics, engine upgrades, and so on. For instance, there are a couple of new air-to-air missiles currently under development by both the US and Europe. Both should be able to be fitted to the JSF, and both would roughly double the range at which the JSF could shoot down opposing aircraft.
Razor: no, of course we won’t buy Russian or Chinese hardware, as we’ve noted many times in the past.
And I second Jacques’ comment about the F-22 availability. Particularly at the moment, if Australia offered to buy ‘em, Congress would be jumping up and down to authorise it. Whether it’s a wise use of money is another question.
And, yes, Mr. Sharpe, you are quite correct, it is the F/A-18 Hornet. Would you care to inform the rest of us whether they’re F/A-18A’s or B’s?
Perhaps we just shouldn’t go to war against China or Russia. Even if our planes were better, we’d lose anyway. Anyone else we are likely to want use them on?
Well as a libertarian I reckon the best way to prevent war is mutual trade. But I accept that defence has a role to play in deterring people who, uh, violently disagree with me.
It really comes down to how you view it. The capabilities you develop as a nation with the ability to fight foreign wars comes in handy for defending yourself; the reverse is not necessarily true. I’d like us to be less expeditionary in our force makeup with more defensive capability. The retaliatory role of the F111 could probably be served by cruise missiles these days, more subs would be nice, and fighters (or Chester’s Blimps O’ Death(tm)) to deter bombing raids. But that’s about it for me.
I’m sorry BigBob, I shouldn’t let a lack of accuracy get in the way of Robert’s exceptionally well informed opinion on Australia’s defence capability. Robert, we own both. I’ll let you inform the rest of class as to the differences.
The JSF vs Su-30 comparison is a bit of a false one. Whilst the Su-30 is indeed a multi-role aircraft, it is primarily an air interceptor, having been (significantly) adapted and modified from the Su-27. The JSF is a purpose built multi-role aircraft. It’s a little bit like comparing a Commodore to an X-Trail. Sure, an X-Trail will drive on city roads, but will always be outperformed by a Commodore. You can paddock-bash in a Commodore, but will always be outdone by an SUV. They key is that the X-Trail will perform better on the road than the Commodore will in the back paddock. That, in layman’s terms, is what makes the F-35 a better buy for our needs than the Su-30. To continue the car metaphor, if we wanted one of those off-road monsters with big tyres and absolutely no on-road capability, we’d get A-10, but I digress. The interesting ingredient in the mix is the F-22. It is purely a sports car. Whilst I hold Razor in the highest respect, I disagree that we should be buying Raptor. Oh, it would be way cool; don’t get me wrong. If we were going to go down the road of continuing the practice of maintaining a separate fighter and strike airframes, the JSF/F-22 combo would be perfect. That’s not the plan though, and we couldn’t afford to anyway.
The point missed so far (although skirted a couple of times) is that the F-35 will not only replace the F/A-18. The RAAF will replace both the F-111 fleet and the F/A-18 fleet with JSF (and F/A-18F as an interim). That gives us a fleet of aircraft to take over both the air-to-air and air-to-ground roles of the retiring airframes, reducing the ongoing maintenance bill of separate airframes.
The “Defence of Australia” doctrine of the Beazley years is dead. It was always a fallacy, and focussed our training and procurement in the wrong direction. JSF will give us the capability of the two airframes it replaces, but more importantly, it meshes nicely with our allies. The USAF, USN, and USMC will all operate JSF, as will the RAF and the RN. This gives us a fantastic interoperability capability that no other airframe could. That coalition environment also put our aircraft alongside F-22 and their mindblowingly awesome air superiority capability.
So, by all means, argue amongst yourselves about the procurement of Russian aircraft, but remember, we don’t play by ourselves.
Richard, if it’s all about meshing with allies, WTF do we need an air force at all for then?
We could cancel the AWDs and the JSF purchase, replace them with some surveillance aircraft and a phone, and use the money to fund more infantry to go and get shot at in Afghanistan, which is what our Great and Powerful Friends are screaming out for more than anything else.
Ah, the New Zealand defence. Tell me then the Rt Hon R. Merkel, MINDEF; what would you do? Lay out for us the plan that you intend to take to the next election. Do we scrap the JSF purchase and go with the Su-30, or do we just scrap the whole idea of maintaining an air capability and rely on the Great Satan to provide that for us? Maybe you could embrace the realpolitik and acknowledge that we are intrinsically liked to the UNZUS treaty and to ABCA, and purchase an airframe compatible with our allies? Red Kezza is sitting uncomfortably in his seat waiting for your response.
As an aside, I’d love to see more infantry. I’ve argued for some time that our SF are over-committed in Afghanistan, and assuming the some of the roles of line infantry. When we have SF soldiers wounded whilst in the FUP for a conventional attack, that tells me that they are no longer operating in the manner that their role dictates. That will mean more casualties though. I’m not sure how willing the Australian public is to see more soldiers killed. The politically expedient answer until now has been to have everyone downgrade a level. SF doing the infantry role, and infantry doing the close protection that supporting elements should be doing for themselves. This policy is rapidly burning out our small, but very well trained and dedicated SF.
OldSceptic [7]:
Have you been eavesdropping at my kitchen window?
You’re right on the money there.
Richard Sharpe [11]:
Any chance of picking up a squadron or two of well-maintained, low-mileage Su-27s then? Please.
Everyone:
Okay. I’ll stick my neck out [again] and take the risk of saying the unsayable in public:
It would be perilous and foolish to over-commit ourselves to buying a far-from-optimal and horribly expensive implement from a country that may no longer exist by the time delivery is due.
[Greeting cards may be sent to me at Hut 369, Compound B-5. Camp 26, Dept. of Internal Order And Security; please do not expect a reply for the next 30 years].
Jacques, well actually partially logical. Subs are the key to Australian defence, both from an invasion point of view and protecting our trade lines. Oz is a Maritime nation, though you’d never believe it from Oz Govts over the last 40 years or so.
Stop the ships arriving in an invasion and we cannot be invaded. But protecting or shipping is realistically more important, stop trade and we die, especially now that we are running out of oil.
Basically out ‘strategy’, if you can call that, is to suck up to the US, so that if the balloon goes up they will, like we think, protect us. Yeh right. One, in WW2 Oz never figured in US calculations at all militarily. The Battle of the Coral Sea has nothing to do with Australia at all from their point of view. Two, MacArthur, a political move by Roosevelt to get him as far from the US as possible (if the US has an Antarctic base then would have put them there, they didn’t so they sent him to Oz). He was a political threat, so he had to be shoved somewhere as far away as possible. Churchill & Roosevelt had only one interest in Oz, our great Army, under their control to be sent anywhere they wanted.
As far as the US is concerned, Oz is a ‘useful idiot’, they’d pick anyone else tomorrow as more important to them, e.g. Indonesia – they proved that, or whatever they think about at the time.
Therefore, and you have to be really dumb not to think otherwise, we have to look after ourself.
As for the F-111, the ‘great white hope’, it is a rubbish plane that has only one useful function .. dropping nukes. Which is why it was bought. Trouble is we have no nukes.
Think logically, our entire F-111 fleet, dropping all their bombs on Jakarta will kill about as many people as die every day from own traffic accidents. We could do a raid and people there would say, next day, oh did we get bombed, really?
Oh the RAAf talk a lot of rubbish about “taking out their Air Force on the ground”. Trouble is, we are at more danger of that happening than they are.
Piffle (I love that word). Because the sub angle only works if we have nuclear powered ones. A Collins class, might get somewhere someday, if the engines dont breakdown or it doesn’t run out of fuel, but. trust me is a real shooting war they will be in the wrong place at the wrong time and need a couple of weeks to get anywhere, by which time it is too late.
But we are Ozzies, desperately anti nuclear, though we sell heaps of uranium ore everywhere. I have a mean suspicion, we are anti-nuclear because we are so scientifically and technologically deficient that anything that is not made out of wood (or made in the US) is too complex for us.
Me I’d buy -30′s and Akulas, best bang for a buck in the world.
OldSkeptic, subs are a power projection tool, not a close protection one. They need a LOT of sea to do what they do. The old chestnut about the Indonesians swarming over the Timor Sea is only a valid theory (and then only just) when Australia has cut all ties with the US and abandoned its defence budget to fund an ETS (or similar hare-brained scheme). The thing that prevents that is not a Timor/ Arafura Sea/Torres Strait full of subs and a RAAF armed to the teeth with Russian aircraft, but the knowledge that we have been on the US’ side for nearly 100 years, have been to war with them on five major occasions, and countless minor ones, and we work intimately and closely together. More importantly, Australia’s interests are served by the ability of the ADF to project Australia as a middle power, and a close ally of the only remaining superpower.
On the topic of our subs, you’re not really up to date are you? Since the early failures of the Collins Project, significant improvements have been made to the subs and they are now among the best in the world. They have done a number of major exercises against the Yanks (in nuclear subs) and come out on top. Whilst I acknowledge your point about our girly timidity when it comes to nuclear power, the only real advantage that nuclear power has in a submarine is indefinite range. Diesel subs are far quieter. A point the RAN ram home every time they have exercised against American nuclear subs.
As for the F-111, the ‘great white hope’, it is a rubbish plane that has only one useful function .. dropping nukes. Which is why it was bought. Trouble is we have no nukes.
Ah but they were planning to built that Nuke Plant and then changed their mind. You are correct, the F111 was purchased so we could yell up North: We’ve got an aircraft that can drop nukes. We don’t have many of them but we don’t need many.
My solution: Why we haven’t gone nuclear is beyond me. Build the bloody plants. Then build a whole lot of missiles silos all aiming north. The truth is this: Australia can only be defended with the help of Uncle Sam. We cannot defend ourselves so don’t upset the Americans.
Richard love the car metaphors, a better one is:
(1) F-16 = WRX, great on road, thumps cars far more expensive, can be tricked up brillaintly for Rallies.
(2) F-18 = Turbo Forester. WRX that is heavier.
(3) F-111 = Landscruiser – old version with the leaf springs.
(4) F-22 = Koenigsegg CCX
(5) F-35 = Forester without the turbo with a curvy shape.
(6) Eurofighter = MX5
(7) SU-30 = Porche, with all the flexibility, swap engines, add this, add that, equals or betters everything.
OldSkeptic,
(7) SU-30 = Porsche, with all the flexibility, swap engines, add this, add that, equals or betters everything.
Right up until the point where you need to support the infantry in the mud, what price your Porsche now?
I stand by my Commodore metaphor, the Su-30 is not the sports car the F-22 is; they’ve tried to multi-role too much for that. They also haven’t multi-roled it enough to be an SUV, so it’s got the speed and manoeuvrability of a road car (not a sports car) and at a pinch it can get dirty. The F-22 is your James Bond Lotus. It is stupidly fast, manoeuvrable, stealthy and has AMRAAM missiles in the headlights.
Richrd, by no means do I underestimate Collins class, I know how good they are. But you are wrong about convoy protection, which it comes down to. A decent nuke sub (ie Los Angelese or Akula) is more than capable of protecting them. Surface ships are toast and it has a much better chance of detecting and killingt another sub.
Your are also wrong about Austalian protection. The other advantage is speed. If a balloon goes up we need our forces to move fast. A nuke sub can cruise at 30 knots+, which means it can get to the action faster.
John, I’ve had this argument with native born Aussies for 25 years. Sorry we can defend Oz without anyone else frojm just about anyone at a reasonable cost. Must be an education thing, I know more about Aussie military history than any Aussie I’ve met. Maybe a confidence thing, is it a natrural thing for Aussies to grovel? Bit tough for you lot then, the US ‘Singapore’ is just about to happen. I suppose then you lot will grovel to China.
Bugger that, we can easily look after ourself thank you.
OldSkeptic,
Mind you, the F-35 is still only an X-Trail. When it comes to supporting the infantry in the mud,and you need the fat tyres, diff lock, low range transmission, roll cage and big fat machine guns; you can’t go past the A-10.
Richard, your right, so you buy a lot of SAAB Vixens for the mud jobs. Su-30s clear the air, the SAABs hit the dirt (can run of dirt roads as well, perfect for OZ).
Again you advocate the two airframe solution.
Off the jargonese for a mo; yet another ABC segment, this time “Latteline”, on above. The following interview with defence minister Fitzgibbon gave this viewer not the slightest sense of comfort that the new government is capable of thinking effectively rond policy wonk issues than the previous lot.
Time for bed, we should have this out over beers sometime. Visit me at Sharpe’s Sortie. Sharpe Out.
Just wanted to say that I would love a mix of F-22 and F-35 but recognize that we just wont get the F22. Jesus, the seppos wouldn’t give us the F/- 18A/B source codes until it was virtually obsolete. And now the Bush/Howard relationship is no longer there it is unlikely the US is going to release the F-22 technology to us. We have enough trouble getting an adequate seat at the ISAF command table in Afghanistan where we are actually in combat alongside the seppos. And many of you here would be unaware of how the Clinton Administration had to be prodded hard in the ribs to give us the necessary logistics and comms support to make East Timor work – initially like getting blood from a stone.
Old Skeptic – I don’t know what your background is but I strongly disagree with you on the F-111. I am not going to get into debate but I believe it is a great aircraft that has been both a wonderful capability and a deterent for decades.
I am a bid supporter of our close relationship with the US but recognise the problems that exist.
Anyway, is there any disagreement with the original point of the post – in a nutshell. the information in the RAND study refers to tells us nothing we don’t already know, and has very little to do with being the right aircraft for Australia?
“can’t climb, can’t turn, can’t run”
John Howard’s legacy.
Geez, you war nerds need to look a bit wider.
There is about one country in the entire frigging world that is geographically safer than Oz – Kiwidom. And they have absolutely the right idea. Why piss money up against the wall defending against quite unlikely dangers?
Tying our defence to a declining and overstretched power is far more likely to get us in trouble than keep us out of it – as Iraq and Afghanistan already bear testimony. And anyway the yanks, like everyone else, decide what to do on a calculation of their self-interest at the time. Gratitude for past sycophancy doesn’t come into these things.
A few subs, maybe a few cruise missiles and some good light infantry with enough logistics so we can meddle a little in the Pacific microstates and do some UN peacekeeping; these should be all we need. Abrams tanks, F22s, F35s , air warfare destroyers and similar hideously expensive toys are a waste of resources that would be better spent securing our future prosperity through a healthy, educated populace.
The major issue here is as addressed by Robert. While Rand have apparently leaked a classified report, it has little new. That the Su-27/30 is able to out-perform F-35 in within-visual-range (WVR) combat is no news.
The game is asymmetric advantage and the Su-27/30 series is not good at that.
Pitting regional capability (for example) the PLAAF J-11 (Su-27) and Su-30 and whatever AEW&C they finally acquire against the F-35 – F/A-18E/F – Wedgetail plus space-based sensor and command, control comms and intelligence systems we have access to is a very interesting exercise. Basically, the type of capability resident in the PLAAF would not survive outside its own air defence ground environment (ADGE). In other words, yes, a RAAF-type capability could hurt that capability inside its own radar and missile systems coverage and punish it very severely indeed outside it.
Which probably indicates that will go for something else outside their ADGE. Ballistic missile attack with smart submunitions (conventional or nuclear) is most likely.
Asymmetry again.
It is less about aircraft now than it is about systems of systems. And a Su-30 cannot out-turn a long-range air-to-air missile (AAM – like AMRAAM). Nobody fights an air superiority battle at WVR any more, as the Syrians found out after the Israel Air Force (IAF) swept the Syrian Air Force from the sky (an 82-0 exchange ratio!) during Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982. As the IAF said, “the Syrians sent a blind man with a knife to a flamethrower fight”. He got fried.
Again, please look at why the ALP government backflipped so quickly and completely on F/A-18E/F after yowling on for so long about it being a bad decision. They did so on being told (in exact detail, I assume) exactly what full data compatibility between F-35 and F/A-18E/F really means. Back in the 90s, the USN decided that its future carrier air groups would be the F-35 – F/A-18E/F/G mix. That means out to about 2050. We are buying the same mix (maybe even the G, too). So we tie directly in to everything the USN has in terms of intel, data and capability. No wonder they backflipped so fast!
3. Razor: correct. The Russkis make brilliant equipment in some areas: S-400 is without doubt the best theatre high altitude air defence (THAAD) system going, their mines are superb, their anti-ship missiles are brilliant, but their great individual systems cannot compensate for our networked systems (which has its own weaknesses, though).
6. BigBob. No, getting the nomenclature correct is important, it is a precise and highly technical field.
7. Old Skeptic. Well may you argue that F-35 is ‘rubbish’. What facts do you have to support your contention? Yes, kinematics DO matter, but the kinematics of what? When Boyd worked out OODA and F-16A resulted, WVR was still the way airforces mostly fought. But now it is common to firmly ID the opponent at WVR ranges, and engage from there. So what matters is the kinematics of the AAM and the ability to keep identifying the enemy to enable engagement at WVR ranges, yes?
“and for the first time in history US plane performance is degrading.” Actually no. Pure acft performance has been ‘degrading’ in many areas since the early 50s, when it first became obvious that pure speed (for example) had too little tactical use to be worth what it cost in other capabilities. F/A-18E/F has short legs, true. That’s why we bought tankers. F-35 and F/A-18E/F have only small radars. That’s why we have Wedgetail PLUS access to data from space-based systems. SO what matters now is how to present that data to one pilot in a manner which does not overwhelm him yet still remains tactically useful. That is incredibly hard to do.
Yes, the Russians have thought hard about how to beat US systems. Su-27 was designed to defeat F-15C in an acft-on-acft manner. It does. But now that entire concept of air warfare is out of date. Ask the Syrians.
The F-22 was designed to both defeat Su-27 acft-on-acft, AND to work inside an integrated system. I’m sorry, but your ‘old rules’ comment is just that. Old. The game’s just not like that any more.
Your cynicism regarding our purchasing is not fully shared (but it used to be). DMO is running nearly all projects very well these days.
11. Richard Sharpe. Interesting use of metaphor and very useful on a non-expert blog. Bravo Zulu.
Yes, DoA in the Dibb sense is dead (thank God) – who the hell wants to fight on our own soil after ceding control of our trade? It always was just another jeune ecole.
On F-22 (although I hate to say it) I respectfully disagree. Operating three types is ridiculous and expensive, but also makes a very nasty form of sense. It would provide such a volume of tactical complexity for potential opponent as to provide Great Power levels of deterrence! It would be very interesting indeed to work the cost-risk-capability-deterrence matrix on that.
If additional money is there, much more sensible (and affordable) than F-22 would be F-35 STOVL for the two light carriers we are acquiring. But that’s a separate issue.
12-14 Robert and Richard. The new Zealand option (bludge on your neighbours) is a very bad look. In our case, it would make us a US Protectorate.
Anyone find this an acceptable reduction of national sovereignty? I do not.
15. Graham Bell. “It would be perilous and foolish to over-commit ourselves to buying a far-from-optimal and horribly expensive implement from a country that may no longer exist by the time delivery is due.”
Correct. Russia may well not exist within a decade or so and Sukhois (while fine machines) simply do not provide the capabilities we must have. The Indians learned this lesson well in their purchase of Soviet systems. Just what do you do when the USSR collapses?
16. Old Sceptic. Subs are great, but they are single use vessels. They sink ships. They are utterly useless in protecting trade, because most of the treats to trade do not need that capability, but an ‘Imperial Constabulary’ capability. Just look at present operations in the Gulf of Aden. HMCS Ville de Quebec convoyed relief ships to Berbera. KD Pahang, frigate KD Lekiu and support ship KD Sri Inderapura (with special forces aboard) have deployed to the same area to escort MISC ships after two were seized. The Malaysian hostages from MV Bunga Melati Dua and MV Bunga Melati Lima are being held at the village of Eyl in northeastern Somalia. The Malaysians are not happy with this. I do not blame them.
These are classic Imperial Constabulary functions for trade protection. The MN, RN, USN, Malaysian Navy and Indian Navy are presently discussing formation of a permanent convoy system in the region based from the French base at Djibouti.
Your comments on US-Australian relations and WWII are long debunked. It really was more complex than that. However, your central point about looking after ourselves is correct. This is what sovereign nations DO to the limit of their resources. Above that, they form alliances where they have common interests with other nations, so dealing with higher-order threats they cannot deal with alone.
21. Old Sceptic. SSN for convoy protection. No. They have no ability to deal with air threats. At modern convoy speeds (16-17 knots) they are NOT quiet and suffer serious degradation in sensor performance due to flow noise. Let alone the noise of the thundering herd. They are useless against long range surface ship attack using missiles targeted by third parties (MPA and space-based systems). Where they are useful is in sprint-and-drift ahead of the convoy inside the closing arcs of any enemy SS/SSN. They can ambush them out there. But it is good old cheap, numerous ASW escorts plus a more capable AAW escort and ASW/ASuW screen commander who does the actual convoy protection. The SSN just helps even the odds a bit by thinning out the bad guys.
Yes, a SSN has strategic mobility and can sprint-and-patrol. But in hostile waters it too does 2-3 knots, just like a diesel boat and for the same reasons. And they are very expensive
28. Robert. It seems not!
29. grace Pettigrew. You forgot to add “as completely endorsed by Krudd and the Komical Komrades’” and “but can kill those who can climb, can turn and still cannot run”.
Because nobody escapes once the AMRAAM gets close….
MarkL
Canberra
Bravo MarkL, Bravo.
30. Derrida Derider.
Comment: Their idea was to cut spending and to transfer their defence on to the good old Aussie taxpayer. The burden-sharing arrangement we both profited from was pretty simple, they provide a core-capabilities Navy for their own trade protection (basically a few frigates and some modern maritime patrol acft (MPA) and they provide the Army close air support capability for both Australia and new Zealand, as our armies would fight together.
That’s what their A-4 force was for.
In return, we provided them with the rest of the trade protection capability they needed (the benefit is mutual) and air defence as well as long range strike.
When Comrade Hulun Cluk scrapped the RNZAF A-4 force and refused to buy F-16A at give-away prices, we were forced to buy Tiger. Because we need that ability for close air support.
Comrade Hulun has merely transferred the new Zealand defence burden on to you as an Australian taxpayer. This is called ‘bludging’. It is not a sound way for a nation to behave.
Comment: DD, do you have a house or car? Are they insured? If so, why are you “pissing money up against the wall insuring against quite unlikely dangers?”
Obviously you are not foolish and do this as a risk management function, to cover yourself against risks you cannot foresee, and which, while unlikely, would have such serious consequences to you that you have decided they are unacceptable despite their low probability of occurrence.
The ADF is our national insurance policy.
Comment: Declining? Overstretched? Extremely unlikely, but even if true, nobody else can come close to them for at least another century. More if they do as they should have decades ago (read Deepak Lal) and become a genuine Empire, and enforce a Pax Americana.
And Australia’s strategic position does not alter anyway. Whatever the globally dominant maritime power is, Australia MUST be its ally. Why? because 99% of our trade by volume and 90% by value goes by sea. We have no strategic choices here.
Comment: Well, no. This is nonsense. The moment we asked the USA for an air defence cruiser with its state-of-the-art command and control systems so that we could remove the TNI option of actually fighting us in East Timor, they said ‘of course’. And they added in Pelelieu with a battalion of Marines and a number of nuclear attack submarines to make damned sure that the Generals had not the slightest chance to overthrow the Indonesian government. Howard did not originally ask for them, PACOM convinced Washington that it was prudent, and Clinton agreed with alacrity. Why? Great Power politics, the most ruthless game of them all. It helped us not only preserve civilian government in Indonesia, but to get TNI used to the idea of taking orders from that civilian government.
Which it still does, much to the advancement of democracy in Indonesia.
THAT was the point. And that may well make Howard the greatest PM in Australian history to date. Another 30-40 years and that historical judgement can be made (or not made).
Comment: No Australian government ever has agreed with this view. Not one. Never. Not even Whitlam. Certainly not Hawke or Keating. Even the Komical Krudd is gassing on about major expansions of the ADF, because the world is increasingly dangerous to Australian interests (especially free flow of maritime trade).
Fortunately, there is some very serious strategic thinking in Australia now. it is bearing fruit, such as the ADF pay review. It turns out that officer’s pay and conditions have not been fully reviewed since 1943. So Howard instituted a full review. Krudd has fully endorsed it. Same with the F/A-18E/F, AAW cruiser, light carriers, F-35 and submarine programs. So what is going on here?
In other words, the ALP and Lib/Nat strategic appreciation regarding Australia’s strategic vulnerabilities is exactly the same. Right down to maintaining the closet possible alliance relationship with the USA and FPDA. And so the fantastical maunderings of crude anti-American bigots (distressingly evident in many left-wing organisations) is universally rejected, resoundingly so, by the entire Australian body politic. No wonder the Greens, the Socialist Alliance etc are so perennially disaffected.
Sucks to be them….
MarkL
Canberra
Everyone:
The Americans respect tough dealers and they detest gutless quitters. Fine. So let’s get tough with the Yanks, earn their respect and get ourselves a swag of state-of-the-art weaponry out of them immediately and at rock-bottom prices.
It’s no news that their economy is in a one h3ll of a mess and that this is only one of the many calamaties that stand a good chance of overwhelming them. Hate to sound mean-spirited but this is just the time get tough and to screw deals out of them that suit OUR needs for a change …. as in the good old Chinese military proverb “Loot the burning house”, that is, take the opportunity presented by another’s troubles and distress to enrich and strengthen yourself.
If the F-22 is as good as its enthusiasts say it is [and I am not yet convinced that it is so marvellous] then now is the time to present the Yanks with a take-it-or-leave-it
ultimatumdeal: Give us HALF your F-22s [in tip-top flying condition] right now, along with all codes, funny little bits of black magic, the latest munitions in perfect working order and whatever – and no holding back. Chuck in all spare parts we could possibly need throughout the life of this aircraft too. Give us the right to enter any USAF base at any time we chose and offer the opportunities of migration to Australia and careers in the ADF to whatever aircrew and groundcrew WE select and to give those so selected immediate honorable discharges fron the USAF. If it is necessary, to paint out any US insignia on F-22 aircraft and replace them with RAAF markings then, in a spirit of generosity befitting of long-time allies, we will allow until 1400 hours tomorrow for the paint to dry.In return, we will consider giving the Yanks a firm guarantee – a guarantee the Yanks can then show the world’s bankers – of a steady income over thirty years at a peppercorn interest as payment in full for one half of the total number of all the complete F-22 aircraft in perfect flying order together with everything we need to keep them effective. We don’t mind helping our old buddies get out of the financial quagmire they got themselves into. What better way to do so that by freeing up all that hanger space?
H*ll! The Yanks won’t get a better deal than that anywhere on the planet. We couldn’t be any fairer.
Then we could say to the Yanks: Now, about that Mars Lander Project; you know, you could put a lot of good folks made homeless by the Sub-Prime rackets back into their own homes with what we would pay you for that project …. anyway, let’s talk about that AFTER the F-22s arrive in Australia.
30. Derrida Derider
A few subs, maybe a few cruise missiles and some good light infantry with enough logistics so we can meddle a little in the Pacific microstates and do some UN peacekeeping
MarkL made an excellent reference to the blind man with a knife at a flamethrower fight. I know you’re a fan of the NZ model, but light infantry on the modern battlefield are little more than track lube for armour. It’s all Mech/Cav now baby. Unless you’re a fan of the sitting in a rocking chair with a shotgun on your knee, daring them darn furriners to come take you of your land dagnammit school of tactics, you need to be able to project force rapidly to where it is needed. That means mobility, which means either mechanised or motorised infantry supported by cavalry, SP guns and tanks (and air MarkL, I’m sorry, and air, I didn’t forget the air), particularly in Australia. Big open space means a lot of ground to cover, which means a fast and fluid battlefield. Try keeping up with that on foot. Light infantry works against villagers armed with whatever rifle they’ve managed to smuggle into a poor South Pacific country, it doesn’t work in the world of insurgency and terrorism. It certainly doesn’t work in the DoA theory still bitterly clung to in certain circles.
Well, if I was to sum up what I agree with in this thread at this point (and it’s interesting how the most thoughtful and well argued defence tech, tactics and strategy threads in the mainstream Aus blogosphere happen on a purple feminist hivemind site), they would be:
- whether some like or not, the ADF is inextricably enmeshed within US strategic and tactical doctrines and tech systems. And why not? I’d rather have the biggest gorilla in town playing with us than against us. And there’s enough goodwill on both sides so we can slide away from politically unpleasant geo-politics engagements while still keeping the mutual nub of the relationship there ie:intelligence gathering, hovering over the Pacific arc of instability and keeping vital sea lanes open and generally prepping for any unanticipated challenges. (eg: In 1918, Japan was a major British naval strategic and technology partner. A generation later it was unexpectedly sinking British battleships. You never can tell);
- 90 or so multipurpose F-35s that can be plugged into multi-force forces and systems is not the worst defence investment Australia can make. Think of them as hi-tech airborne utes that can carry a multitude of payloads and so perform multiple tasks;
- Subs. Because of their stealthy nature (and the Collins’ are pretty damn stealthy now) they can intimidate opposing forces and narrow their options just by the possibility they might be in the vicinity. Like a roving minefield. Plus they have signals gathering and special forces infiltration capabilities as well; and
- Air superiority. The Yanks now own any battlespace where this is an issue. It doesn’t matter how much a Su-30 can do the cobra if it’s pinned down like a fly on a window by state of the art C4I systems relentlessly assembling and directing the machinery to splat it. Admiral Yamamato would be the first to agree here – if he had survived a meticulously planned and plotted hit by US forces using all the resources at their disposal, And it’s only gotten worse since for any airborne enemies of the US.
So confronted with all that, third world and non-government players shift the battlespace to where they can handicap hi-tech forces through the terrain and culture of both sides. Exhibit A: Afghanistan which has consistently defeated all hi-tech attempts to impose external definitions of order. I’ll bet anyone here $500 bucks that within three years, the Brits will resort to their classic Afghan operating techniques – butcher and bolt. They’ve certainly had enough practice.
And no amount of Fleet Air Arm F-35s laden with the next generation of smart area denial munitions flown off HMS Queen Elizabeth will make a hapsworth of difference to this outcome.
The only point I can see for Australia getting involved in such ludicrous Great Game rematches is that it gives the ADF more invaluable experience in third world peacekeeping, disaster management and sprawling slums pacification.
Skills I fear will be more and more demand as this whacky century unfolds.
36. Nabakov.
Not really. There are more specialised forums which do nothing but this sort of discussion. In the case of this blog, the credit goes to Robert for his genuine interest, ability to accept new information and change his mind, and insistence on that civility without which adult discourse is not possible.
Anyhoo, I am off to reduce the population of feral animals on my rellies sheep property. They have way too many lambs this season. Thanks for the discussion, Robert!
MarkL
Canberra
MarkL: if you could provide pointers to such forums it would be appreciated.
Ah, the ‘systems’ argument. The US has bet the farm on this one, but its starting to look like a bust. The simple fact is that the other side studies all this and comes out with countermeasures, both technologically and tactically, usually at a fraction of the cost.
I have a gut feeling that the end of the AWAC is near. Simply because an opposing force will make it the first target. The -30 has specific capabilities and armaments to deal with this (and tankers):
1. Range, being able to go after an AWAC well behind the lines.
2. A variety of long range anti-radar and radar/IR missiles.
3. A lot of missiles, it can fire off multiple salvos with mixed types.
4. Speed to get in close (and just wait until the -30 gets supercruise).
Take a scenario against a F/18 defended wedgetail. You know where it is, it is a big target putting out a lot of radar energy. Send 4 -30′s Approach fast, supersonic, 2 planes launch salvos at the escorts, well outside AMRAAM range, the escorts scatter (or die). The other 2 launch multiple salvos of radar/IR/Radar homing missiles. wedgetail dies. One of the 20+ missiles fired at it will get it.
Even if the escort manages to get 1 or even 2 of the -30′s (unlikely, more likely the F-18s die) that’s an easy exchange to make (pawn for a rook). It actually gets worse of you use the JSF for protection, it is slower, less manoeuvrable and has only 2 missiles. They will still scatter because the risk of the IR missiles getting them, the wedgetail will be running for its (short) life so they will have to light up their own radars .. and get a bunch or radar homing ones back at them. More likely the -30s will then stay around to mop them up (they can’t run, the JSF is too slow, the F-18 will run out of fuel too quickly on afterburner, and that exhaust makes a wonderful IR target).
And the -30s can do all this while, if they choose, staying out of counter attack range.
In actual fact the US has lost the BVR war, all those wonderful systems are irrelevant if your missiles have shorter range than the other side, even more so if the other side has longer range radars as well. Even worse if they have a lot more and more varied missiles specifically designed to crack the network.
And if they go for WVR, then the F-18s and -35s are toast (with equivalent pilots of course), but the -30s don’t have to, they can stay out of range and just fire salvo after salvo.
Couple of other points:
In BVR manoeuvrability and speed and acceleration count just as much as ever. Missile flight time may be considerable, that gives the other side a lot of time to use electronic and other counter measures, manoeuvres to break out of lock, etc. Hit probabilities, drop rapidly with range (which is another reason why in the real world WVR is the rule to be sure of a kill). Stealth helps, but that pretty much has been broken now, at least where there is ground radar support, and if it lights up its radar to guide their missiles (for mid course correction) then you get a lot of anti-radars, mixed with IR right back at you.
Subs can protect a convoy. Again the simple option in this situation for Oz is to route convoys well away from the range of land based planes. Unless we fight the US and face a satellite guided carrier, then the only thing to fear is bumping into a frigate or something. Which is just a target to a sub. The issue is that you need a nuke sub to do it, yes it sprints and drifts, so what. It can then move quickly to an attack position and clear the way. Good as they are, Collins class simply cannot do that.
A two plane strategy makes sense, because the ‘holy grail’ of a do everything plane is just a fantasy, I though we learned that lesson with the F-111, note the ‘F’, yes it was supposed to be a fighter as well. It has ended up as a sub-sonic bomb truck (Barnes Wallis was right).. It’s only real use (excepting the nuke dropper role) is as a long range maritime strike craft.
Tanks are dead, Hezbollah proved that. And I’ll go out on a limb here, attack helicopters are dead as well. When you can carry something that will kill either on a Hilux .. well what do you think. 1:1 exchanges, heck even 1:8 exchanges means that attrition wins. Even in Iraq, during the invasion they pulled the plug on that, even small arms fire damaged too many.
The entire western military approach is nonsense, created by a systemically corrupt US procurement system, that’s their problem, but I don’t see why my hard earned tax money should be wasted on this rubbish.
Those dammed Israelis, they just won’t stop learning from things!
Richard, no they dont, basically because all their arms are free (US ‘sells’ something to Israel, the Congress matches it [at least] with a grant, or ‘loan’ or whatever). Then they sell them to China at a profit. Result they are off in ga-ga land, meanwhile, at a fraction of the cost, Hezbollah can beat the crap out of them.
What really scared the Israelis in 2006 was the fact that their best soldiers, fighting one on one were beaten by the local defenders (ie the Hezbollah reserve = part time forces).
Note Hezbollah never sent in its front line troops into that conflict, they were held back. Probably, despite what they say now, they expected they would have to meet the Israelis in Beirut. But the Hezbollah reservists held (interesting analgy to the Kokoda trail) and the Israelis were thumped. They lost the courage to put in their own reservists after their full time, ‘expert’, soldiers lost.
Israel is really a lost soul, locked into their mythology of military supremacy, when they should have been an economic leader. They fantasise about physical dominance, when their real success should have come from the economic uplift in their immediate area that they could have built. Future historians will use the statement, snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory, as the great Moshe Dyan worried about.
Everyone:
This JSF farce – or should we call it a scandal? – is a natural result of several decades of brown-nosing, crawling, spinelessness and forelock-tugging by Australian politicians, public servants, wardroom-warriors and – heaven help us! – “defence experts”. .
The fools probably thought they were building up an insurance policy that would compel the Americans to rush in and save our bacon if anyone ever attacked us.
Instead, all they built up was Australia’s reputation as a bunch of suckers who would buy any garbage with “DEFENSE” and “UNITED STATES” written on it – at any price and in any condition and on any terms.
Had we been a bit more forthright, firm and assertive as well as showing ourselves to be very tough and unshakable negotiators, our gallant allies would now be falling over themselves to offer us the F-22 [and whatever goodies they have under the wraps] on OUR terms at OUR price.
It’s not too late to wake up to ourselves and get a good deal, for a change ….
Well said Graham,and about time too.
As soon as the Indonesians read this and realise how weak we are they’ll be marching down here sweeping all before them, led by their two Sukhoi 30s which will wipe our airforce out of the sky. We have only days to wait until this catastophe befalls us.
It is about time the people were told!
And I am proud and glad that you were the man to do it.
None of this sophisticated nonsense from MarkL and Robert Merkel. Whatt would they know?
OldSkeptic, you didn’t follow the link did you? Iron Fist is an Israeli invention, designed to counter the very threat from the likes of Hezbollah that you seem so proud of. It can be fitted to any vehicle and will defeat any incoming threat, up to and including sabot kinetic penetrators. That’s the funny thing about military technology; every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The IDF copped some anti-armour weapons in Lebanon. They came up with a system (there’s that word again) to defeat them. The next generation of anti-armour will, I’m sure, have a system (it just keeps coming up doesn’t it?) to defeat that. The cycle will start again. That’s why bailing out and giving up is not an option. That is why ditching our armour or buying the current generation of Russian jets over the next generation of American ones is a very pedestrian policy in a fast moving portfolio. BTW, your man from Cessnock disagrees with the leaked RAND report.
Greg M [43]:
Poor diddums. Did my comments wound your vanity?
L-O-L!!
Now, back to the issue ….
Robert Merkel:
Back to a basic concept We all want to go about out daily lives undisturbed by enemy attacks.
We can attain that by having a system of national defence or aggression that:
[a] Frightens potential enemies so that they won’t attack. [The nuclear deterrent was the 20th Centuy's outstanding example]
[b] Weakens potential enemies so that they can’t attack. [Filling enemy youth with addictive drugs and false beliefs was another 20th Century favourite]
[c] Diverts potential enemies so that they attack someone else instead. [Good old Diplomacy with its lying promises of undying support].
[d] Renders them relatively harmless by persuading them to squander the bulk of their militsry budget on useless war-toys and on glamorous wild adventures [As medieval Popes did by sending troublesome kings and nobles off on Crusades].
Or, [e] Prevails over the enemy forces if they do attack us and disturb our daily lives.
Just one of the many, many ways of prevailing over and halting the enemy forces is to fling harmful objects at them so as to destroy their equipment, to wreck their infrastructure and to kill their troops …. whether the device that flings such harmful objects is a home-made bow-&-arrow, a 100M.-tall trebuchet, a medium machine-gun or a horribly-expensive moderately-fast strike aircraft.
The ill-considered JSF is only one such device …. so why the h*ll aren’t we even bothering to consider ALL the other options?
No Graham your comments made me laugh. I was just applauding the sheer idiocy of them.
Gentlemen, you know the comments policy. Please follow it.
interesting analgy to the Kokoda trail
OlkSceptic, not really. For someone who claims “I know more about Aussie military history than any Aussie I’ve met”, that is a very weak analogy. Whilst the 39th Bn et al fought themselves to a bloody standstill in a determined fighting withdrawal, it was the arrival of the 2nd AIF that turned the tide. Unless Hezbollah were relieved at the last minute by a Lebanese or Palestinian regular force, your analysis is off.
Robert Merkel [48]:
Fair enough. Warning heeded.
Everyone:
What would be so wrong with questioning all of our traditional approaches to procuring, using and disposing of defence equipment?
We have had our fingers burnt so many times before that, sooner or later, we are going to have to start learning something useful from all that pain and loss …. before a capaable and detrmined enemy imposes those lessons on us, too late for us to benefit from them! Stick-in-the-mud thinking lost us the Nomad aircraft [great concept; pity about the tails coming adrift; let's panic instead of going back to the drawing board], MetalStorm [only we can send worthwile Australian inventions fleeing overseas], etc., etc. Stick-in-the-mud thinking has led to us splurging on second-best, third-best and sometimes worst-possible defence acquisitions.
We deserve better. We have been promised better. We are paying for better. So why on earth can’t we have a radical re-think of the whole shemozzle …. and get better?
Richard, note I said “anyone I’ve met”, There are far better experts around, just that the average Ozzie knows nothing about their own military history and have no idea about our amazing victories (WW1, WW2, etc). In this area we really punch above our weight.
I said the Kokoda/Hezbollah event was analogous. There were significant differences, firstly the Japanese fought to the death and didn’t stop coming, even after they were eating boot leather. The Israelis gave up the ghost when they were faced with such opposition. Secondly Hezbollah was very well prepared. They had years to get ready, excently trained, good communication and tactics and they had penetrated Israeli security. Out boys had nothing, poorly equipped, with no knowledge of what they were facing.
But what was similar was the incredible fighting spirit, by part time soldiers. Both awesome achievements in purely military terms.
As for the ‘great technical’ innovations that the Israelis can apply (ie the great Western fantasy)? ‘Any incoming threat’? Nonsense. Russia will simply sell them something that can beat it and/or better tactics will be used at a fraction of the cost.
Look during WW2 the Germans slung their hat on this idea, it didn’t work. German troops had far better equipment on average. But greater numbers and (e.g. Alamein and D-Day) better leadership and flexibility and creativity (e.g. how we won the intelligence war) got us through. In some cases, e.g what the Aussies did at Alamein and Kokoda, sheer fighting spirit.
The western world’s great military fantasy, basically the US’s fantacy. “Our equipment is better than theirs”, ugly truth, for long times it has not been. The 105 Thuds were slaughtered by MIGs and SAM’s in Vietnam. In fact the Vietnam airwar is the least studied airwar in history, the results were not good, which is why the, currently, maligned “US Fighter Mafia” managed, in the teeth of massive opposition and at the sacrifice of their careers, managed to change things around and produced good planes with good training and good tactics.
Unfortunately, the “good old boys” have managed to turn it all around again and hence produce: The F-22 a 20% superior SU-30 at 4 (5, 6+) times the price, a F-18 worse than the previous version and a JSF = the new F-111, which will end up the same way a subsonic low level bomb truck that can only exist where there is no opposition, that is if it ever made at all (given the US economic collapse ).